Friedman: Gaudreau negotiations will be put on hold during World Cup

[jemjey]

Originally Posted by pac_4_ever

LOL at "goal quota" and "invisible forces". He played on a bad team his first season and probably got more opportunity because of the lack of talent around him. Dude, you guys need to chill. He is a good player, nobody is taking that away from him. All I am saying is he is slightly overpaid (in my opinion). Players making 6+ mil are elite/great as far as I am concerned. Monahan is good, but not elite. Some fans shouldn't be so biased just because a player plays for the team they cheer for. As for now, the only great/elite players on this team are Gaudreau and Gio.

I wasn't active on the forum at the time so I don't know how members felt on this forum but it kind of reminds me of the time fans were calling the radio hoping that Glencross would be named next team captain after Iginla's departure.

>Playing on a bad team
>Playing with a lack of talent around him

Wouldn't that make the fact he scored 20 as a rookie a greater accomplishment?

Just saying... your logic doesn't add up. "Oh ya those 20 goals he scored he just got those because his teammates and linemates sucked so ya know somebody had to score them."

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Outline how it is comparable at all to the Phaneuf trade. The problem with that deal is that they did acquire good long term pieces. This deal would be the polar opposite. Not sure why you have to use hyperbole to make your point

If anything, a comparible would be the Lindros trade IMO.

[JiriHrdina]

Yup fully agree. That worked out ok

[Young_Guns]

Originally Posted by jemjey

>Playing on a bad team
>Playing with a lack of talent around him

Wouldn't that make the fact he scored 20 as a rookie a greater accomplishment?

Just saying... your logic doesn't add up. "Oh ya those 20 goals he scored he just got those because his teammates and linemates sucked so ya know somebody had to score them."

It is a great accomplishment no doubt. I just think he wouldn't have put up as many goals had there been established players capable of already doing so. He was surrounded by plugs, who were inept for the most part. His skill was obviously superior in comparison to Jones et al. Sometimes players benefit individually from playing on bad or mediocre teams.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by pac_4_ever

LOL at "goal quota" and "invisible forces". He played on a bad team his first season and probably got more opportunity because of the lack of talent around him.

Ok, let's say his 20 goals as a rookie was because he got more opportunity than the average rookie would.

He's our first line centre. He'll likely never get less opportunity than he did during his rookie season throughout the rest of his prime.

What point are you making? If Gaudreau gets traded, Monahan is still our #1 centre. He's still getting more opportunity than he ever did as a rookie. I just don't see the logic in discounted his totals because of "opportunity."

And overpaid? He's making in line with exactly what comparable (and lesser) centres his age are making. Nonsense.

[jemjey]

Ok. I suppose I get what you are trying to say, that he wouldn't have had as much ice-time/opportunity on a contending team, which is obviously true. He probably wouldn't have scored 20 if he was drafted by Chicago (probably wouldn't have made the team). That I can get on board with.

But the fact that he scored 20, as a 19-year-old rookie - with, as you say, "plugs" surrounding him - proves pretty emphatically that he is not "as good as Johnny makes him." Your argument kind of has the implication that anybody would have been able to pot 20 if they had been given as much ice-time/opportunity as him, which is obviously not true. You can give Bollig 25 mins a night and he's not gonna score 10.

[Ryan Coke]

Monahan did get opportunity his first year, absolutely. But he got the opportunities because he played well, same scenario as Gaudreau's rookie year.

BTW, I would rather have Monahan for a little less too, but my point was it was very fair (generous) for him, indicating that Treliving likely isn't trying to low ball Johnny. The reality is Johnny is a fantastic but largely one dimensional player. But it is a hugely important dimension.

Meanwhile Monahan isn't as dynamic offensively, but still puts up big numbers while having other facets to his game than JG. And I can understand the concern about how much Johnny is the catalyst for Monahans production, except for the data which refutes it.

[Young_Guns]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Ok, let's say his 20 goals as a rookie was because he got more opportunity than the average rookie would.

He's our first line centre. He'll likely never get less opportunity than he did during his rookie season throughout the rest of his prime.

What point are you making? If Gaudreau gets traded, Monahan is still our #1 centre. He's still getting more opportunity than he ever did as a rookie. I just don't see the logic in discounted his totals because of "opportunity."

I feel that Gaudreau inflates his stats because Gaudreau is that great and skilled. I don't see him cracking 60 points per season without Johnny as a constant fixture on his line therefore I feel a 6 mil+ salary makes him slightly overpaid. Why not compare his salary to somebody like Tavares instead, who is making a million less while putting up far superior numbers and is also the Captain. I get that Tavares signed that deal in 2012/13 but he was coming off a point per game season, something Monahan is yet to accomplish.

Originally Posted by jemjey

Ok. I suppose I get what you are trying to say, that he wouldn't have had as much ice-time/opportunity on a contending team, which is obviously true. He probably wouldn't have scored 20 if he was drafted by Chicago (probably wouldn't have made the team). That I can get on board with.

But the fact that he scored 20, as a 19-year-old rookie - with, as you say, "plugs" surrounding him - proves pretty emphatically that he is not "as good as Johnny makes him." Your argument kind of has the implication that anybody would have been able to pot 20 if they had been given as much ice-time/opportunity as him, which is obviously not true. You can give Bollig 25 mins a night and he's not gonna score 10.

That's my point. He isn't a Bollig and his skillset was better than majority of the guys on the team which is why he potted 20 goals but that doesn't automatically make him a true #1 C.

[FBI]

Usually agree with Jiri and not Polak, but I wouldn't make that trade either. I am pretty high on Johnny though and think he can be a yearly top 5-10 scorer for next 10 years.

[jemjey]

Still not sure I get your point. He scored 20 as a rookie because of his skillset, with bad teammates, but he wouldn't have scored as many if he had better teammates? Then he goes on to score 30 with JG, an elite linemate, and all of a sudden now he's scoring because they're all backdoor tap-ins from Johnny?

Clearly he's benefitting from playing with a great offensive talent, but it's also clear that he's a proven (dare I say, elite) finisher. Think of all the points JG would have had if certain Flames last season could put the puck on net. It goes both ways - it's not just Sean benefitting from playing with Johnny.

Also the comparison to Tavares is pretty unfair. Tavares is a really, really good player. Better comparisons are Mackinnon, Barkov et al.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by FBI

Usually agree with Jiri and not Polak, but I wouldn't make that trade either. I am pretty high on Johnny though and think he can be a yearly top 5-10 scorer for next 10 years.

I don't mind if people disagree. I don't think saying you wouldn't is absurd, but nor do I think saying you would is absurd.
The value is strong.

[transplant99]

If nothing else, this thread shows how grossly under rated and under appreciated Sean Monahan is by a segment of fans.

He is a bonafide #1 C who plays all 200 feet and is among the top 30 in scoring league wide. He is fairly big, strong, a leader and just signed here for 7 years at a very team friendly cap hit. He is likely to be the teams Captain in the future....all at a position that this club has struggled filling for years.

He isn't even 22 years old yet.

He is as valuable to the Flames as any other player they have....period.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by pac_4_ever

...He isn't a Bollig and his skillset was better than majority of the guys on the team which is why he potted 20 goals but that doesn't automatically make him a true #1 C.

What makes Monahan a true #1 centre is the fact that he plays and produces like one already at the age of 22-years-old.

You're just flat out wrong here.

[polak]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Outline how it is comparable at all to the Phaneuf trade. The problem with that deal is that they did acquire good long term pieces. This deal would be the polar opposite. Not sure why you have to use hyperbole to make your point

Have you been frequenting HF Boards or something where being under 23 all of the sudden means you're good?

None of the players you want to trade for have anything near the value of Johnny or his ceiling. Hell he hasn't even hit his ceiling. Its a completely ridiculous proposition in my eyes and it would basically restart the rebuild and we would have to sit here with our fingers crossed hoping that any of those players make an impact whilst Gaudreau lights it up with Sedins and breathes new life into the Canucks. One of our biggest rivals.

[JiriHrdina]

Individually the player do not equal Johnny's value - but combined - they sure do.
I would strongly suggest that all four of the players WILL be NHLers. And probably something like
Boeser: top 6 forward, perhaps even top line
Virtanen: solid 3rd liner, 2nd line if things go great. Not a huge fan
Joe Levi: Top 4 dman, perhaps a #2
Horvat: Elite 3rd liner

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Individually the player do not equal Johnny's value - but combined - they sure do.
I would strongly suggest that all four of the players WILL be NHLers. And probably something like
Boeser: top 6 forward, perhaps even top line
Virtanen: solid 3rd liner, 2nd line if things go great. Not a huge fan
Joe Levi: Top 4 dman, perhaps a #2
Horvat: Elite 3rd liner

"Perhaps even" a top-liner? "Perhaps" a #2?

Come on, now. Gaudreau isn't "perhaps" a star. He's a top-notch top-line player. He was one of the best scorers in the entire league last year, at age 22. I sure as hell don't want to get two "perhaps good" players and two 3rd-liners for him.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Individually the player do not equal Johnny's value - but combined - they sure do.
I would strongly suggest that all four of the players WILL be NHLers. And probably something like
Boeser: top 6 forward, perhaps even top line
Virtanen: solid 3rd liner, 2nd line if things go great. Not a huge fan
Joe Levi: Top 4 dman, perhaps a #2
Horvat: Elite 3rd liner

The Flames have people at all those positions, in optimal age ranges, minus the top RW prospect, who you even admit may not even be that.

I just can't see how that trade would favor the Flames at all.

One player does not make a team, but having at least one top end talent at each position is a must. The only one we're missing is RW. You make this trade and we're missing RW and LW, with a bunch of maybes. May be in the cards for a team that's about to hit a decline and we were talking about a 30 year old JG, but we're not. It's imperative to retain him.

[JiriHrdina]

Look back at deals where that type of haul was given in return.
Johnny is great but that deal would set the franchise up for the future in a great way.
The Lindros trade is a great example.

Worst case scenario you get 4 young NHLers, and then the x factor is how good some of them end up being.

It isn't as outlandish as some of you are making it out to be.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by MattyC

The Flames have people at all those positions, in optimal age ranges, minus the top RW prospect, who you even admit may not even be that.

I just can't see how that trade would favor the Flames at all.

One player does not make a team, but having at least one top end talent at each position is a must. The only one we're missing is RW. You make this trade and we're missing RW and LW, with a bunch of maybes. May be in the cards for a team that's about to hit a decline and we were talking about a 30 year old JG, but we're not. It's imperative to retain him.

I think Boeser is a top RW prospect. I think he's that good.
I think this organization STILL lacks overall assets - and that has been the struggle for 2 decades.
Making a deal where they turn a late pick into 4 great assets wouldn't be bad.
It's moot though. If this were to happen I doubt it would be the Canucks in any way, shape or form. So we are wasting time debating a deal that is never going to be in the cards.
If Johnny is dealt, at some point now or in the future, I think going east is far more likely: Philly, NY, Devils, Boston, etc.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Look back at deals where that type of haul was given in return.
Johnny is great but that deal would set the franchise up for the future in a great way.
The Lindros trade is a great example.

Worst case scenario you get 4 young NHLers, and then the x factor is how good some of them end up being.

It isn't as outlandish as some of you are making it out to be.

The Lindros trade worked in favor of the Avs because 1) Lindros went on to be injury prone and never reached his potential, and 2) Because one of the pieces became one the greatest ever European players.

You want to roll your dice on that, with those 4 players?